WRITTEN QUESTION E-0719/02 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Unpaid-for environmental damage and compensation for the competitive disadvantage suffered by agricultural producers who have carried out extensive environmental protection measures.
Date: 2002-03-15
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: common agricultural policy, environmental protection, environmental tax, organic farming, polluter pays principle, restriction on competition, sustainable agriculture

C 205 E/202

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

29.8.2002

(2002/C 205 E/213)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0719/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(15 March 2002)

Subject: Unpaid-for environmental damage and compensation for the competitive disadvantage suffered by
agricultural producers who have carried out extensive environmental protection measures

1.
Does the Commission believe that the environmental costs caused by agriculture, at the expense of
other actors within society or liable to be passed on to future generations, also ought to be a factor in
determining the sustainability of agricultural systems, in particular the consequences of disruption to the
mineral balance because of ammonia, nitrates and phosphates stemming from large-scale feed imports and
highly toxic fertilisers and because of copper and cadmium stemming from the use of chemical pesticides
and herbicides?

from the ‘polluter pays’ principle, now generally
2. Why is the agricultural sector still exempt
applicable, now that holdings must pay for preventive measures but, in general, not for the pollution itself?

3.
Does the fact that agricultural income is unconventially produced, by comparison with other sectors
(little paid employment, a large number of family farms), help to ensure that the easiest way to obtain
savings in this part of the economy is through lower costs and addressing environmental impact?

4.
Can the Commission subscribe to the proposition that organic holdings’ products would be cheaper
on the market, by comparison, than products from the most widespread type of holdings if the latter had
to pay for the environmental harm caused by that type of farming?

Does the Commission agree that passing on environmental costs, referred to in the previous
instance between

5.
questions, can be regarded as a form of unfair competition,
conventional and organic farming?

in this particular

6.
Does the Commission see scope within the agricultural sector, as is also being sought within
transport, for ‘internalisation’ of environmental costs, i.e. on the basis of a comparison of production costs,
holdings causing the least pollution would be given preferential treatment?

7. Will the possibility of internalisation be expressly included in the groundwork for the change,
projected to take place over the next few years, in the use of funding for the common agricultural policy?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(22 April 2002)

1.
The Commission is, indeed, convinced that agriculture, as any other sector or individual citizen, has
to respect environmental standards and reduce environmental costs in line with society’s expectations. The
Commission believes that this is a precondition for achieving sustainable development in agriculture. This
view has been underlined by explicitly mentioning ‘Environmental Protection Requirements’ among the
‘Common Rules for Direct Support Schemes under the Common Agricultural Policy’ (Article 3 of Council
Regulation (EC) No 1259/1999 of 17 May 1999) (1).

The Commission would like to underline that agriculture is by no means exempt from the ‘polluter
2.
pays’ principle. As it is the case for any other sector, farmers have to observe their obligations under
environmental legislation at their own costs. Such legislation has been established both at Community and
Member States level and encompasses a wide range of environmental issues such as the prevention of
pollution from farm inputs (nitrates and plant protection products) and the preservation of habitats and
biodiversity.

29.8.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 205 E/203

Farmers face competition in the market place and economical viability means foremost to produce at
3.
competitive costs. Of course, competitiveness must not be achieved at the expense of the environment.
Therefore, farmers, as any other producer or citizen, must act subject to clearly defined rules with respect
to the environment.

4.
The Commission does not believe that organic production becomes less expensive by confronting
conventional farmers with stricter and, therefore, more costly environmental constraints. However, one
would assume that establishing higher environment standards would improve the competitive position of
organic farming vis-à-vis conventional farmers as long as the organic farmers manage to comply with such
standards at lower costs.

Since both conventional

farming and organic farming are subject

5.
to the same mandatory
environmental standards, the Commission would not support a view according to which the competition
farming is unfair, provided that the environmental standards are
between organic and conventional
effectively enforced by Member States, which is often not the situation. The Commission does, however,
acknowledge that organic farming provides environmental benefits beyond legally binding standards. The
provision of such benefits by organic farming give cause to granting agri-environmental payments,
calculated on the basis of cost differences between organic and conventional farming. Whereas paying
organic farmers is eligible as an agri-environment measure under Rural Development Programmes,
Member States apply this measure to a greater or lesser extend.

the Commission would be reluctant

6.
It is the very meaning of ‘internalising environmental costs’, in line with the polluter pays principle,
that the costs of observing obligations under environment legislation remain with the potential polluter.
Therefore,
to reward compliance with mandatory environment
requirements. A different situation is given where farmers commit themselves to deliver environmental
benefits beyond the level of mandatory environmental requirements. Beyond this reference level,
in
agriculture normally referred to as ‘good farming practice’, one would consider the farmer to use his
factors of production for delivering valuable environmental payments. And it is only straightforward to
encourage the provision of such services through financial
incentives as it is done on a voluntary,
contractual basis under the agri-environment measures.

7.
As the Commission expressed clearly in the ‘European Union Strategy for Sustainable Development’
presented at Gothenburg, the reinforcement of the second pillar of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)
and, in particular, the agri-environment measures belong to the top priorities in further developing the
CAP.

(1) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.

(2002/C 205 E/214)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0722/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(15 March 2002)

Subject: Risk of collapse because of non-standard construction methods for motels and restaurants

belonging to the Van der Valk concern with branches in various EU Member States

Is the Commission aware that in the Dutch town of Tiel, on Sunday 10 February, the rooftop car
1.
park of the local motel, built between 1982 and 1986, collapsed and that this accident could have claimed
many lives if it had occurred during the computer fair which had just ended or after the planned
conversion of the car park into a permanent ‘events hall’?

2.
Is the Commission also aware that the motel referred to in question 1 belongs to the Van der Valk
concern, which operates a host of hotels, restaurants and recreational facilities in the Netherlands, many
designed and built by its own construction firm, usually using more light-weight foundations, cheaper
construction materials and non-standard designs and furthermore also exploiting many local authorities’
efforts not to hinder in any way the process of attracting a well known concern’s motel with restaurant